Debunking the Phoenix Lights flare theory

[Saru]

Debunking the Phoenix Lights flare theory

Click here to watch video - 04:21s

The flare theory is by far the most common theory and the official explanation for the Phoenix Lights.

[Cryptozological Mascot]

Couldn't watch the video yet, but I remember when the flare explenation was first put out there... utterly redonkulous. Flares wouldn't have stayed up there that long.

[IamsSon]

If you want to debunk the flare theory all you have to do is talk to people who were in Phoenix on that night. To a man they will tell you there was something incredibly large and solid hovering over the city. I spoke to police officers, kids, senior citizens, men, and women and they were all adamant that the lights were attached to a large object. They were also all very angry about the fact that they were being made to look like idiots to the rest of the world with the theory that it was a bunch of military flares.

[booNyzarC]

This video completely fails to debunk the flare reality. Sorry folks.

[Jambi28]

This video completely fails to debunk the flare reality. Sorry folks.

?

[ColoradoParanormal]

I'm a military man, have been all my life. I've been around Military Flares quite a bit, we used them often over in Iraq and here at home in training. The crew that is responsible for setting off the flares in a training situation here at home, has to submit a flightplan and precise "drop plan" of where these flares will be with the CO, FAA and base towers. This is to insure that these flares are not dropped over an area that civilians and property are not damaged by this "drop." There are cases of houses and city blocks catching fire from these when dropped in war time use over seas.

When I saw the explanation of Flares for the lights down in AZ, I was astonished that anyone would believe this. As this video states, the FAA and Military Command negates any and all use of these flares over civilian area's or occupied area's. That, in itself was enough when I heared this to say "No way." That's without seeing all the video's. Then, watching the mass amounts of video's taken from the sighting, and eye witness accounts just reassures the fact they weren't military flares.

Watching the video's from that night, those lights did not, and were not flares. As shown in this video, flares leave a chemtrail from the magnesium burning. Also stated in this video, which is true, is long lines of flares dropped do not keep the same rate of speed and do not stay in "formation." Flares, descend at different rates and are effected by many different things in the environment, wind, temperature etc. Also, flares do not maintain altitude and travel over a hundred miles.

As I've said, the explanation of military flares being the Phoenix Lights is a total farce. I'm not saying that what happened down there was an Alien Ship though. I do believe it was a craft, or there are CIA projects using projected holograms. Could be anything but, flares it is not. And I would be willing to put my reputation, and everything I have to say it is not flares. That's not something I take lightly either. However, I just know enough and have enough experience with this situation to say without a reasonable doubt, that what officials offered for an explanation, is false.

Edited April 28, 2011 by ColoradoParanormal

[booNyzarC]

--

Could be anything but, flares it is not. And I would be willing to put my reputation, and everything I have to say it is not flares. That's not something I take lightly either. However, I just know enough and have enough experience with this situation to say without a reasonable doubt, that what officials offered for an explanation, is false.

This is a very bold statement mate. But fortunately you end it with acknowledgment that perhaps you haven't looked into this as deeply as others possibly have. That is how I interpret your last sentence anyway.

We've been discussing this case very deeply over in the BE thread for quite a while. I can confidently tell you that the videos of this event are indeed flares. The confirmation analysis is there in the BE thread if you'd like to track it down.

Cheers.

[S2F]

There were two separate incidents. The earlier sighting, which was described as a triangular or 'V' shaped lights over the city of Phoenix, and the later sighting of a series of lights descending behind the Estrella mountains to the Southwest of Phoenix. The latter sighting is what has been presented as flares and the math used to determine triangulation and elevation supports this. The former sighting is still unexplained as near as I can tell although there was a witness using a telescope that claimed they were planes. There seems to be quite a bit of confusion between the two sightings.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Slave2Fate

[ColoradoParanormal]

This is a very bold statement mate. But fortunately you end it with acknowledgment that perhaps you haven't looked into this as deeply as others possibly have. That is how I interpret your last sentence anyway.

We've been discussing this case very deeply over in the BE thread for quite a while. I can confidently tell you that the videos of this event are indeed flares. The confirmation analysis is there in the BE thread if you'd like to track it down.

Cheers.

Boony! You don't back talk me! lol jk! Def. am going to go check that out my friend! Thanks!

And I'm stating from what I've seen. The video's I've seen, those aren't flares. However, if this other thread has more information on a different event that were flares, then cool. You know me, I'm all about the truth. knowledge is king to me, and if I'm wrong on something, I'll be the first to say so! Thanks again!

[twisterjester]

Debunking the Phoenix Lights flare theory

Click here to watch video - 04:21s

The flare theory is by far the most common theory and the official explanation for the Phoenix Lights.

I live in Arizona and I did at the time of the Phoenix Lights. When several months later the military handed down their BS about the flares, local television reporters couldn't keep a straight face when they recited the military's farce. It was a joke to the real people who lived here and knew what really happened.

When it was happening - during the time when local broadcasters interrupted normal programming to report on the phenomenon, we were told that the military launched a squadron of fighter jets to defend the city against those "military flares". The military scrambling - that's about the only real part of the report. Local emergency personnel were on alert. So... the military supposedly launched a fighting force against its own flares?

Um, no. Come on - I can't believe anyone is gullible enough to buy into this crap. It's a bald faced (and poorly thought out) lie. What I find even more ludicrous was an analyst's declaration (assuming this video is from the same hacked TV show I saw and laughed at a few weeks back) that because the lights disappeared where they aligned with the peaks of South Mountain, they had to be flares. Wouldn't the SAME RULE apply to lights of a massive aircraft disappearing behind the mountain?

No matter how you hack it, no matter how many pseudo experts you throw at it, the flares story is a bust.

[booNyzarC]

As much as I can appreciate your opinions on the matter, I doubt highly if you've actually looked over the analysis of the videos of the event because it is very clear that the videos aren't of a single object, but a grouping of lights.

Also clear from the analysis is that they dropped lazily down behind the mountains just like flares would do.

Being that you lived in Phoenix at the time, did you actually see the lights yourself? What time? Where were they exactly? Where were you at the time?

[booNyzarC]

Boony! You don't back talk me! lol jk! Def. am going to go check that out my friend! Thanks!

And I'm stating from what I've seen. The video's I've seen, those aren't flares. However, if this other thread has more information on a different event that were flares, then cool. You know me, I'm all about the truth. knowledge is king to me, and if I'm wrong on something, I'll be the first to say so! Thanks again!

No worries mate, I look forward to your thoughts on it. I'm actually planning to do a bit more analysis possibly over the weekend, hi-lighting some other details, and maybe compile it all together into a blog entry for ease of reference. Hunting through the BE thread can be tedious even with the advanced search unless you have a pretty good idea of what you are looking for and roughly where it is. Hopefully I'll have the time.

[twisterjester]

As much as I can appreciate your opinions on the matter, I doubt highly if you've actually looked over the analysis of the videos of the event because it is very clear that the videos aren't of a single object, but a grouping of lights.

Also clear from the analysis is that they dropped lazily down behind the mountains just like flares would do.

Being that you lived in Phoenix at the time, did you actually see the lights yourself? What time? Where were they exactly? Where were you at the time?

Since you've already made up your mind - based on second- and third-hand accounts, much of it doctored, what difference does it make what I say to you?

[booNyzarC]

Since you've already made up your mind - based on second- and third-hand accounts, much of it doctored, what difference does it make what I say to you?

I take it you didn't actually see the lights then? I prefer to not make assumptions, but with your clear refusal to answer the question, I'm left with little other choice.

If by "made up your mind" you mean that I've looked at the video evidence available, reviewed the analysis done by an optical physicist, reviewed the

by Cognitech, familiarized myself with the LUU2B flares involved which produce 1.6 or 1.8 million candela (light output which at a distance of 70 miles or so is much brighter than the brightest star), verified their results with Google Earth and the calculations and input from notable UM members lost_shaman, Pericynthion, and Czero 101, to ultimately conclude that the original analyses performed were accurate... then yes, I suppose that in a sense you would be right. There is much more, of course, but that should be enough links to review for the time being.

I hardly think that review of the first-hand video evidence can be considered "second- and third-hand accounts", and if you would be so kind as to point out how any of this was "doctored" it might support your position that the actual video evidence of the event was filming something other than flares.

(The following GIF is a looped animation, sped up, showing the flares disappearance behind the mountains from Mike Krzyston video superimposed over daytime footage from his house.)

I don't understand how anyone can conclude that those descending lights are attached to one big craft...

Cheers.

[JonathanVonErich]

I agree with my friend Boo that the videos of this event are indeed flares.

However the real "Phoenix lights" mystery is, in my opinion, the sightings who have happened around 8:00 pm, the "V" object, which appeared over northern Arizona and gradually traveled south over nearly the entire length of the state, eventually passing south of Tucson.

[Wookietim]

This video completely fails to debunk the flare reality. Sorry folks.

Well, you see, here is the problem with claiming that the "Phoenix Lights" were flares : That night, that configuration of lights was seen all the way from northern Arizona to southern Arizona and back again. They were seen in other places than just the city of Phoenix. Unless we have a set of flares that are tied together with some sort of propulsion behind them and being remotely controlled to fly back and forth from the top of the state to the bottom and back again during a period of around 12 hours, Flares just don't work as an explanation. After all, those would be a pretty magical set of flares to be able to do that...

The problem with this sighting is that everyone focuses on just the one set of pictures and videos and tends to forget that this was a set of sightings that stretched beyond the borders of the city of Phoenix and was actually a set of sightings that took place over a period of 3 years (As triangular configurations of lights that match the ones we all think of were videoed up to 3 years before). One can explain the one sighting but when taking it in the context of the entire phenomenon, that explanation tends to break down under even the most cursory questioning...

[booNyzarC]

Well, you see, here is the problem with claiming that the "Phoenix Lights" were flares : That night, that configuration of lights was seen all the way from northern Arizona to southern Arizona and back again. They were seen in other places than just the city of Phoenix. Unless we have a set of flares that are tied together with some sort of propulsion behind them and being remotely controlled to fly back and forth from the top of the state to the bottom and back again during a period of around 12 hours, Flares just don't work as an explanation. After all, those would be a pretty magical set of flares to be able to do that...

The problem with this sighting is that everyone focuses on just the one set of pictures and videos and tends to forget that this was a set of sightings that stretched beyond the borders of the city of Phoenix and was actually a set of sightings that took place over a period of 3 years (As triangular configurations of lights that match the ones we all think of were videoed up to 3 years before). One can explain the one sighting but when taking it in the context of the entire phenomenon, that explanation tends to break down under even the most cursory questioning...

I'm not aware of anyone claiming that the earlier sightings on March 13, 1997 were of flares. Aside from one bit of video (

... tell me that doesn't look like planes in formation...), all we have to go on for the earlier sightings is witness testimony. Comparing the video with the testimony demonstrates a pretty compelling discrepancy. Add to that mix the fact that Mitch Stanley viewed the earlier sighting through his Dobsonian telescope and reported that it was planes flying in formation and one has to wonder about the accuracy of the other eye witness testimony related to the earlier events if they have the intention of intellectual honesty.

Other footage from other years has also been analyzed and determined to be flares. See Bruce Maccabee's analysis which starts with the January 14, 1998 videos. The photos of Lynne Kitei are also reminiscent of flares, with the possible exception of the two orbs she photographed close to the ground.

But the point is... grouping the different sightings together and classifying it as a phenomenon is incorrect. If the film evidence is determined to be footage of flares and planes flying in formation, that leads a reasonable person to conclude that the eye witness testimony which doesn't match with the film evidence is likely to be embellished to some degree whether intentionally or not. The entire city of Phoenix was abuzz from the whole thing. When people get excited, perception can get skewed and stories will grow from there to seem larger than they actually were. This assessment of the earlier sightings is purely my opinion by the way.

But even if you don't agree with my opinion about the earlier sightings, you must admit that the analysis of the videos should exclude them from the overall phenomenon as you put it. And if you exclude that, what do you have left and exactly how compelling is it?

[Wookietim]

I'm not aware of anyone claiming that the earlier sightings on March 13, 1997 were of flares. Aside from one bit of video (

... tell me that doesn't look like planes in formation...), all we have to go on for the earlier sightings is witness testimony.

Planes in formation. Flying in commercial air traffic lanes. At night. Without filing any flight plan. Come on - that is even more unbelievable than saying that they are aliens from a distant planet... And we have more than just witness testimony. There are videos of sightings years before the famous one and there are also videos of sightings outside of Phoenix on that same night as well...

Comparing the video with the testimony demonstrates a pretty compelling discrepancy. Add to that mix the fact that Mitch Stanley viewed the earlier sighting through his Dobsonian telescope and reported that it was planes flying in formation and one has to wonder about the accuracy of the other eye witness testimony related to the earlier events if they have the intention of intellectual honesty.

Wait - on one hand you were deriding the other sightings because all that was there was witness testimony, then you are using just witness testimony to try to disprove witness testimony? There is a pretty weak circular argument to be made against that bit of logic...

Other footage from other years has also been analyzed and determined to be flares. See Bruce Maccabee's analysis which starts with the January 14, 1998 videos. The photos of Lynne Kitei are also reminiscent of flares, with the possible exception of the two orbs she photographed close to the ground.

Reminiscent of flares. Hmmm... So, we are to believe that the State of Arizona is just wildly tossing flares up into the sky at all times of the year for years on end... for fun? And always in the same formation? In busy commercial air traffic corridors?

But the point is... grouping the different sightings together and classifying it as a phenomenon is incorrect. If the film evidence is determined to be footage of flares and planes flying in formation, that leads a reasonable person to conclude that the eye witness testimony which doesn't match with the film evidence is likely to be embellished to some degree whether intentionally or not. The entire city of Phoenix was abuzz from the whole thing. When people get excited, perception can get skewed and stories will grow from there to seem larger than they actually were. This assessment of the earlier sightings is purely my opinion by the way.

Except it hasn't been determined to be flares or planes flying in formation. You are using witness recollections to try to undermine videos and other witness recollections... Then proceeding to make an assumption that seems wildly weird to me : That the state of Arizona had flares being shot into bust civilian air traffic corridors for years and those flares stayed in perfect formation as they flew around the state... And if we are to go with planes in formation doing the flying, then it ought to be quite easy to prove - find the flight plans filed with the authorities. Otherwise you are saying that the state had a few years of random flares and formations of planes flying randomly around the state, criss crossing major amounts of air traffic without a single person being notified of that happening... That explanation boggles the mind...

But even if you don't agree with my opinion about the earlier sightings, you must admit that the analysis of the videos should exclude them from the overall phenomenon as you put it. And if you exclude that, what do you have left and exactly how compelling is it?

The analysis of the video is just one analysis though... There are other analyses that disagree with that. And of course there are other ones that disagree with both. Therefore this bit of data should not be discounted since there is no actual consensus on it unless one ignores all the conflicting analyses... (I'd find them for you right now, but I am kind of pressed for time at the moment - you can find the conflicting analyses on google though).

[booNyzarC]

Planes in formation. Flying in commercial air traffic lanes. At night. Without filing any flight plan. Come on - that is even more unbelievable than saying that they are aliens from a distant planet... And we have more than just witness testimony. There are videos of sightings years before the famous one and there are also videos of sightings outside of Phoenix on that same night as well...

First of all, that footage at the 1 minute mark wasn't all that dark. Did you watch the footage? If that isn't planes in formation, what would you say it is? Secondly, we don't know if that footage was in commercial air traffic lanes, had a flight plan, or if it was even recognized on FAA RADAR because the records that would determine it aren't available. Nobody bothered to request the RADAR records before they had been discarded after 20 or 30 days per standard protocol.

So no, I don't consider this to be more unbelievable than saying it was aliens from a distant planet. Not by any means. And again, you are lumping the sightings together as if they were all the same thing. How exactly have you come to the conclusion that they were all the same thing? The differences in eye witness testimony are pretty disparaging, which is an indicator of just how unreliable eye witnesses are in the first place.

Considering your apparent tone, you seem to be taking this very personally. Do you feel an emotional attachment to the mystery of the Phoenix Lights?

Wait - on one hand you were deriding the other sightings because all that was there was witness testimony, then you are using just witness testimony to try to disprove witness testimony? There is a pretty weak circular argument to be made against that bit of logic...

Not at all. I'm not deriding any eye witnesses. Pointing out that eye witness testimony is unreliable is simply making an observation of fact. Many studies have been done which demonstrate this unreliability. There is nothing derisive about it at all, it is simply a fact.

In terms of the Mitch Stanley testimony, do you at least agree that looking through his telescope he would have a better view of the situation than people observing with the naked eye? It isn't a tiny little telescope, after all, it is on the scale of these big guys here:

You tell me... who is going to see better... someone looking up in the sky with their eyes or someone looking through one of those telescopes?

Reminiscent of flares. Hmmm... So, we are to believe that the State of Arizona is just wildly tossing flares up into the sky at all times of the year for years on end... for fun? And always in the same formation? In busy commercial air traffic corridors?

Nobody is claiming that the flares are in a commercial air traffic corridor. They were dropped over the Barry Goldwater Test Range south of Gila Bend. And yes, they are dropped routinely and have been for many years.

Except it hasn't been determined to be flares or planes flying in formation. You are using witness recollections to try to undermine videos and other witness recollections... Then proceeding to make an assumption that seems wildly weird to me : That the state of Arizona had flares being shot into bust civilian air traffic corridors for years and those flares stayed in perfect formation as they flew around the state... And if we are to go with planes in formation doing the flying, then it ought to be quite easy to prove - find the flight plans filed with the authorities. Otherwise you are saying that the state had a few years of random flares and formations of planes flying randomly around the state, criss crossing major amounts of air traffic without a single person being notified of that happening... That explanation boggles the mind...

Once again, try to break down the sightings to individual components because they aren't all the same thing. There are multiple things at play, not just the flares which were filmed as part of the primary group of video evidence. And yes, they have been confirmed as flares.

In addition to that we have other events which witnesses have described in other areas earlier that evening. Some say it was a giant craft, some say they saw planes. Let me remind you that I gave my personal opinion about what I believe the earlier sightings consisted of, not what was definitively determined. There isn't enough evidence, in my opinion, to arrive at a positive and definite conclusion regarding the earlier sightings (unlike the later film footage which is conclusively of flares).

The analysis of the video is just one analysis though... There are other analyses that disagree with that. And of course there are other ones that disagree with both. Therefore this bit of data should not be discounted since there is no actual consensus on it unless one ignores all the conflicting analyses... (I'd find them for you right now, but I am kind of pressed for time at the moment - you can find the conflicting analyses on google though).

I'm afraid that if you want other analyses of the footage to be considered you'll have to actually present it instead of suggesting that I Google for it. But if you are talking about Jim Delettoso's analysis, I would love to see it because he claims (or claimed) to have triangulated the lights to a position above the city of Phoenix instead of out over the BGR. For some reason I have been unable to find any detail about that analysis. I assume it is because he knew it was incorrect and pulled it, but who is to say?

Regardless of any other analyses done, the Maccabee analysis has been validated by multiple other people. As far as I'm concerned it is definitive. And if you want to falsify it, you'll have to show us exactly where his analysis went wrong. Tom King and Bill Hamilton made this attempt but failed miserably. And perhaps that is one of the other analyses you are referring to?

All of that aside, if you have some actual data for us to look at which disproves the flare conclusion, please do present it. Because as it currently stands, nobody has been able to touch this explanation even though many efforts have been made. I feel you have a tall order in front of you if that is your goal, but by all means let's see what you have.

Cheers.

[Wookietim]

Nobody is claiming that the flares are in a commercial air traffic corridor. They were dropped over the Barry Goldwater Test Range south of Gila Bend. And yes, they are dropped routinely and have been for many years.

The rest of your post I can chalk up as a difference of opinions. But this is the point where sometimes I feel like I am beating my head against a brick wall when it comes to debunkers...

"The Phoenix Lights" refers to a group of phenomena that occurred over a 3 to 4 year timespan and an entire state. The Barry Goldwater Test Range does not cover the entire state. Nor were flares wildly tossed into the air at random times over it. And, to lend even less credibility to that concept : People that live within sight of that range have a pretty good idea what flares in the sky look like as they live within sight of the other times flares have been used.

But even then - to restrict questioning to one video taken on one night and use the term that covers a 3 to 4 year period that includes sightings across an entire state along with videos... That is less than useful.

[twisterjester]

I take it you didn't actually see the lights then? I prefer to not make assumptions, but with your clear refusal to answer the question, I'm left with little other choice.

If by "made up your mind" you mean that I've looked at the video evidence available, reviewed the analysis done by an optical physicist, reviewed the

by Cognitech, familiarized myself with the LUU2B flares involved which produce 1.6 or 1.8 million candela (light output which at a distance of 70 miles or so is much brighter than the brightest star), verified their results with Google Earth and the calculations and input from notable UM members lost_shaman, Pericynthion, and Czero 101, to ultimately conclude that the original analyses performed were accurate... then yes, I suppose that in a sense you would be right. There is much more, of course, but that should be enough links to review for the time being.

I hardly think that review of the first-hand video evidence can be considered "second- and third-hand accounts", and if you would be so kind as to point out how any of this was "doctored" it might support your position that the actual video evidence of the event was filming something other than flares.

(The following GIF is a looped animation, sped up, showing the flares disappearance behind the mountains from Mike Krzyston video superimposed over daytime footage from his house.)

I don't understand how anyone can conclude that those descending lights are attached to one big craft...

Cheers.

I saw them. I'll leave it at that.

[Wookietim]

I saw them. I'll leave it at that.

May I point something out? The reason why the video included in the above post is not able to explain the actual Phoenix lights is because that is not the picture or video that is the most well known. How do I know this? Compare the time of day that video was taken and the configuration to the actual famous picture :

One is in early dusk. The other is in full night. One shows a jagged line of lights. The other shows a rather smooth set of them.

[booNyzarC]

The rest of your post I can chalk up as a difference of opinions. But this is the point where sometimes I feel like I am beating my head against a brick wall when it comes to debunkers...

There was actual content in that post worthy of more response than "chalk up as a difference of opinions," but I can understand your hesitation to address the points as they are difficult to refute.

But I do have to give a little chuckle... respectfully of course because you are labeling me a debunker. Seriously?

Why is that?

I'm objectively looking at the evidence which has been presented and arriving at a conclusion which fits that evidence. How does that make me a debunker?

People who have long held onto the mystery of the Phoenix Lights without actually reviewing the evidence in great detail seem to be hesitant to objectively consider that evidence when it presents a case for dissolving the mystery. I can understand that as well.

"The Phoenix Lights" refers to a group of phenomena that occurred over a 3 to 4 year timespan and an entire state. The Barry Goldwater Test Range does not cover the entire state. Nor were flares wildly tossed into the air at random times over it. And, to lend even less credibility to that concept : People that live within sight of that range have a pretty good idea what flares in the sky look like as they live within sight of the other times flares have been used.

I've never said that there weren't multiple sightings over an extended time span. Quite the opposite actually, I've fully acknowledged this fact. But to truly assess the whole thing it must be broken down into individual pieces while still remaining aware of the broad picture.

In terms of the people living in the area having familiarity with the flares, you might think so but is that really a reasonable expectation? I don't think it is at all. Consider the videos from that 10 PM sighting on March 13, 1997 and the videos from the January 14, 1998 sighting. These were filmed by long-time residents of the Phoenix area, but they were filmed because they seemed unusual to them.

Well, they were flares. That is pretty clear evidence that the residents, in fact, weren't all that familiar with what flares dropped over the BGR would look like. Quite the opposite. It is definitive evidence that they definitely weren't familiar with flares.

But even then - to restrict questioning to one video taken on one night and use the term that covers a 3 to 4 year period that includes sightings across an entire state along with videos... That is less than useful.

Again, breaking it down to each component is the only way to actually start analyzing it. If you only look at the big picture, you can't make a determination about each piece of the puzzle. And if you discover in analyzing individual pieces that they don't belong in the big picture, it narrows down the overall series of events. If you are left with unanswered questions, then that is a valid mystery to ponder over. But to include pieces of the puzzle as part of that remaining which should be eliminated after analysis paints an inaccurate and overly grandiose picture.

[booNyzarC]

May I point something out? The reason why the video included in the above post is not able to explain the actual Phoenix lights is because that is not the picture or video that is the most well known. How do I know this? Compare the time of day that video was taken and the configuration to the actual famous picture :

One is in early dusk. The other is in full night. One shows a jagged line of lights. The other shows a rather smooth set of them.

You might have missed the part where the animated GIF is a composite of two pieces of footage taken from the same point of view. One piece of that composite is the original K video, the other is day footage from the same perspective.

[Wookietim]

There was actual content in that post worthy of more response than "chalk up as a difference of opinions," but I can understand your hesitation to address the points as they are difficult to refute.

But I do have to give a little chuckle... respectfully of course because you are labeling me a debunker. Seriously?

Why is that?

I'm objectively looking at the evidence which has been presented and arriving at a conclusion which fits that evidence. How does that make me a debunker?

People who have long held onto the mystery of the Phoenix Lights without actually reviewing the evidence in great detail seem to be hesitant to objectively consider that evidence when it presents a case for dissolving the mystery. I can understand that as well.

I've never said that there weren't multiple sightings over an extended time span. Quite the opposite actually, I've fully acknowledged this fact. But to truly assess the whole thing it must be broken down into individual pieces while still remaining aware of the broad picture.

In terms of the people living in the area having familiarity with the flares, you might think so but is that really a reasonable expectation? I don't think it is at all. Consider the videos from that 10 PM sighting on March 13, 1997 and the videos from the January 14, 1998 sighting. These were filmed by long-time residents of the Phoenix area, but they were filmed because they seemed unusual to them.

Well, they were flares. That is pretty clear evidence that the residents, in fact, weren't all that familiar with what flares dropped over the BGR would look like. Quite the opposite. It is definitive evidence that they definitely weren't familiar with flares.

Again, breaking it down to each component is the only way to actually start analyzing it. If you only look at the big picture, you can't make a determination about each piece of the puzzle. And if you discover in analyzing individual pieces that they don't belong in the big picture, it narrows down the overall series of events. If you are left with unanswered questions, then that is a valid mystery to ponder over. But to include pieces of the puzzle as part of that remaining which should be eliminated after analysis paints an inaccurate and overly grandiose picture.

Silly observation : If we were to break the study of the human body down to a study of the individual atoms, where would we find anything that is alive? Or, in order to make it more obvious what I am saying, if we were to analyze a box as six board, where does the "Boxness" come from?

Sometimes breaking down an entire phenomenon that is obviously much larger than one tiny thing is not the best way to analyze anything...